Apologetics – Page 80

Alienism & Christianity

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

– Sir Walter Scott

Civility is a kind of relation that recognizes the moral priority of more intimate relations. We don’t owe fellow citizens the same sort of obligations we owe family, friends, and co-religionists. Civic relations respect this order of duties and affections, as when a wife is excused from testifying against her husband. (Nomocratic rule supports this moral priority). But in teleocratic regimes, everything may be collapsed into political membership, and children may be ordered to inform on their parents, or taken away from parents who subvert their loyalty to the state, as by teaching them religion….

What is plain, at any rate, is that Alienism is far from a marginal force. It offers malcontents of all sorts an ideology or gnosis that enables them to interpret normal life maliciously as a crude though somewhat disguised struggle between oppressors and victims. If the oppression isn’t obvious, that is because the oppressors are so cunning and their victims so totally subjugated that even their perceptual powers are in thrall. Acquiring the liberating gnosis is called “consciousness-raising.” The process enables the initiate to strip off the mask of oppressive structures and see capitalism as exploitation, freedom as “repressive tolerance,” and prosperity as “invisible poverty.”

Joe Sobran

Pensees

When Christianity embraces Alienism the result is that God favors eliminating the natural priority of family in favor of prioritizing the stranger and the alien so that the stranger and alien, in essence, are now the benefactors of the priority that was once bent towards family. Alienism, run amok, thus prefers the alien and the stranger above and over members of one’s own household. When Christianity embraces Alienism the result is that the proverb “Charity begins at home,” is seen as demonically sourced. When Christianity embraces Alienism the result is the owning of the sulfur doctrines of the “Fatherhood of God of all men,” and the “Brotherhood of men with all men,” with the consequence that the Universal affection those doctrine require stamp out all the particular affections of family, people, and nation. Christianity, does indeed teach the necessity of the Universal when it teaches to, “do good to all men,” but not without adding, “especially to those who are of the household of faith,” thus demonstrating that the Particular still remains. Christianity insists upon the Particular when it teaches, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever,” and this without denying the noble character of the Good Samaritan.

Alienism is the faith of the Unitarian. It believes in and actively seeks to build a world where “all colors bleed into one,” so that mankind is as undifferentiated as the Unitarian God it serves. Alienism is the faith that hates all God ordained distinctions in favor of an equality of the garbage scow where distinctions likewise are non-existent. Alienism denies the God ordained distinctions of mankind just as Unitarianism denies the Trinitarian distinctions in the Godhead. As the Alienist worships a Unitarian God, mankind must be made in that god’s Unitarian image. As such, distinctions melt away in the name of equality (sameness) as equality is pursued in the name of practical Unitarianism. Women are men. Children are purple penguins. Marriage is distinction-less. Bathrooms are gender-less. Ethnicity is a social construct. Pronouns must become gender neutral. All roads lead to god. Why can’t you “Co-exist”?

Alienism, as it comes into the Christian faith, trades in the Revolutionary language of “Citizen,” or “Comrade,” — that language that flattens out all distinctions in favor of a grand oneness — for the Anabaptist “Brother,” which does the same thing but with a Christian patina. Alienism, as it comes into the Christian faith, posits a eschatological vision of a Unitarian border-less world where, because Jesus has triumphed, therefore the particularity of Nations cease to exist. Where such a eschatological vision exists any pointing to passages in the Scriptures that speak about Nations remaining in the New Jerusalem is shouted down as “heresy,” and “hateful.”

Alienism will settle for nothing less than the complete inversion of orthodox Christianity. According to Alienism it is a positive good when thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand. According to Alienism it is a sure sign of Christian maturity when, the stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. This is all acceptable to Christian Alienism just as long as we so reduce the meaning of Christianity so that everyone can be considered Christian. The definitional distinctions that a robust Christianity demands are as offensive as every other distinction to the Christian Alienist. In such a way the rank and file Christian can be brow beat about his insensitivity and lack of love for Jesus if he even begins to object to the Alienist vision and worldview.

Usually, Christian Alienism, is not quite as cutting edge as “secular” Alienism. For some reason Christians think that they honor Jesus if they stay 10-15 years off the cutting edge. Because this is so Christian Alienists will allow for Homosexual Christians as long as those Homosexual Christians are not practicing Homosexual Christians. “See,” thinks the Alienist Christian, “we are sensitive to the need to blur distinctions also.” Alienist Christians can be found who will even speak about their “Brother Muslims.” Alienist Christians prove their mettle most obviously when they insist that Jesus is especially pleased when the worship of the WASP takes place in multicultural settings. This despite the fact that these same people take great pleasure in the existence of uniquely Korean congregations in their denominations.

In the end, Alienism as Christianity, is just another disguised version of the Marxist vision to eliminate all distinctions.
The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

“Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth, the human race will become one family and the world the abode of reasonable men.”

-Adam Weishaupt, quoted in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (London: Orion Books Limited, 1993), p. 32.

Capitalism developed the ever more inhuman polarization of the sexes. The cult of making distinctions, which serves only for oppression, is now being swept away by awareness of resemblance and identity.

M. Walser
Uber die neusten Stimmungen im Westen
In: Kursbuch, Bd. 20, 1970, S. 19-41.

”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

“The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

—Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
“The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959

Alienism is very likely the greatest threat to orthodox Christianity today and so of course the Church has embraced it.

Robert Conquest … He Was Right You Effing Marxists

The historian of Stalin’s “Great Terror,” and “Harvest of Sorrow,” and a poet, Robert Conquest passed away 03 August at the age of 98. Somehow this slipped my notice until now. Conquest was one of those authors that I was required to read in my Undergraduate education and along with Dr. Fred Schwarz and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, I was rooted in my continued interest in and resistance to all ideologies tainted with Marxism. Conquest was part of a handful of authors (Swarz, Gareth Jones, Malcolm Muggeridge) who had pointed out the bloodletting of the Marxist regime. He was not taken seriously until Alexander Solzhenitsyn confirmed Conquests’s conclusions. Conquest had limericked the genocide of Lenin and Stalin,

There was a great Marxist called Lenin

Who did two or three million men in.

That’s a lot to have done in,

But where he did one in

That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in.

Conquest lived to see his disputed work and figures vindicated with the fall of the Soviet Union. After the opening up of the Soviet archives in 1991, detailed information was released that supported Conquest’s earliest conclusions that had been disputed by the Establishment Commie lovers in the West. When Conquest’s publisher asked him to expand and revise “The Great Terror,” after the opening of the Soviet Archives, Conquest is famously said to have suggested the new version of the book be titled, “I Told You So, You Fucking Fools.” Actually, this quote comes from one of Conquest’s friends (Kingsley Amis) and not Conquest himself.

Interestingly enough the NY Times in its obituary for Conquest had this to say about the proposed title,

In a moment of gleeful malice, Mr. Conquest told friends that his suggested title for the new edition was “I Told You So, You Fools” (with a vulgar adjective inserted between the last two words).

First, note that the NYT (the “Paper of record”) couldn’t even investigate far enough to realize that Conquest did not say what it accuses him of saying. Secondly, the NY Times does not manage to mention its continued malice that refuses to return the Pulitzer won by its journalist, Walter Duranty, who knowingly lied about and covered up the genocide in the Soviet Union that Conquest would later investigate. The New York Times finds it necessary to mention Conquest’s putative “gleeful malice,” without mentioning its complicit role of malice in the genocide of millions of people. The Times thus continues its jaded and irresponsible lying journalism.

Isegoria lists these as Conquest’s three laws of politics:

1.) Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

2.) Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

3.) The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

I’ve read a good deal of Conquest and thought this passing of one of the few who didn’t sleep was worth noting. On this matter Conquest was a giant of the 20th century.

Doug Wilson on Ann Coulter … McAtee on Wilson

Over here, the barely conservative Doug Wilson chimes in on a Ann Coulter tweet,

Ann Coulter and the Disease of American Conservatism

I agree with Doug that American Conservatism is diseased but I also think there is some disease in Doug’s reasoning on this piece.

Doug starts off by saying that Ann Coulter has done good work and then goes on to give her tweet to which he so strenuously objects,

“I don’t care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper. http://bit.ly/1EvT3Ja”

Doug then concedes that Coulter was using hyperbole here, in the cause of supporting Trump’s immigration policy. Doug complains though that, “what she is willing to say represents the central confusion of American conservatism.” And then offers this question,

What are we conserving? America or that which makes America worth conserving?

Maybe there is a third answer to this question that Doug does not consider. Maybe the answer to this question is that we are conserving the time and space that is needed for us to exist so that we might more thoroughly repent. Doug needs to be reminded that dead people don’t repent. And so while our mad border-less immigration pursuit is only a symptom of a far greater disease it is a symptom that must be dealt with now so that the patient lives long enough to be cured of the disease. It could be the case that to say what Coulter says above is to say in effect, “I know we need to repent but if we don’t craft a sane immigration policy we, as a people, will be aborted before we can repent.”

Doug then puts all kinds of words in Coulter’s mouth which I’m sure she would say is a misrepresentation of her intent, Doug writes,

“Put another way, oh, how I wish God would govern the world in ways other than the ways He has revealed to us in Scripture. I don’t care if we sow the wind in the White House, I just care that we don’t reap the whirlwind on our borders (Hos. 8:7 ). I don’t care if we mock God in the White House, just so long as God does not visit us elsewhere with the consequences of mocking Him (Gal. 6:7 ). I don’t care if we are deserving the wages of sin in the White House, just so long as we don’t have to actually do any dying (Rom. 6:23 ).”

Now, I am not a shill for the neo-conservative Coulter but neither am I a shill for the neo-con Wilson but in this case, I think Coulter is correct. She is not saying all that Wilson puts in her mouth above. She is merely using hyperbole to say that, “all things being equal if I had to choose between the dangers to this country that immigration represents and the dangers to this country that abortion represents I’d choose immigration.”

And, in this case, Coulter is correct. The current attempt to create a borderless nation (an oxymoron if there ever was one) guarantees turning what remains of this nation into a third world hell hole where death and disease would be so familiar that the days when deaths by abortions were considered “shocking” would be seen as the “good old days.” If you doubt this go visit the high-density suburbs of a third world country. Now add to this that a borderless country guarantees a Tyrannical government that will give us the usual “Death by Government” numbers that tyrannies always give and one begins to see the sense of what Coulter is saying.

Coulter is not saying that abortion is good. She is merely saying that open borders is so bad that it makes abortion look good.

Wilson is correct that what is needed is a boatload of repenting but repenting also includes the idea of repenting that we desire to commit ethnocide and Christocide by an open borders policy that is nothing but an insane policy of pursuing the death of both a people and a faith. Repentance includes not throwing ourselves on the bonfires of the NWO with its white-hot intense hatred for all things Christian and for all those who have, through the centuries, been the bearers of Christ.

Wilson is correct that we deserve the judgment of plague, pestilence, and poverty against us for our sin but perhaps by pursuing a sane immigration policy God is going to give us space to later repent even more? Doug doesn’t know God’s mind that a sane immigration policy might be God’s mercy to us to repent more deeply at a later time for the sins of our defiance against Him.

The diseased conservatism that Doug champions think that because we cannot yet be cured of the disease (rebellion against God) that we should not be given time or space by God that our children and grandchildren might come to their senses and repent for our high handed sins.

I hate this country as much as Doug does for its sins against God … sins that cry out for justice. But I also love this nation enough to pray like Habakkuk of old,

LORD, I have heard the report about You and I fear. O LORD, revive Your work in the midst of the years, In the midst of the years, make it known; In wrath remember mercy.

“Oh Faithful, Merciful and Just God we plead for the sake of Christ that you might be pleased to give us repentance. For those who refuse to repent and who adorn our nations’ life with the vile, the ugly, and the psychotic we pray that you would arise and crush them. We beg of you to bring upon them the burning, cutting, and torture they have brought upon the ‘least of these.’ We plead Father against the apathetic who are content with their personal peace and affluence that you might afflict them and awaken their conscience and if they refuse to be awakened we pray that you would visit them with the boils of Job. O great God for the bureaucrat and politician who makes the machinery of wickedness function smoothly we pray for restoration but if they will not be restored Father, we ask that you might make them now bureaucrats and politicians in Hell so that a righteous person might take their place. We plead with thee that you might defend thy own name, reputation, and honour by cleansing our land and causing us to repent in dust and ashes for the wickedness for which we are clearly responsible and in which we delight.

Make the Name of thy Son, the Lord Christ, a name to be both feared and cherished again.

In Christ’s name, we pray

From Classical Marxism to Cultural Marxism — One Doctrinal Transmutation

In one of his works, “The German Ideology,” Marx expands on what life will be like in the “free” communist paradise where division of labor as found in Capitalism, is finally abolished:

“For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

Now with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 many Marxists have given up on Marx’s promise of each and every man being a renaissance man that is an accomplished cattle rancher one day, a first class huntsmen the next day, a concerto violinists the following day and a Olympic member of the Soviet hockey team the next. However, this doctrine has not gone away as it has been inherited by the Cultural Marxists. Indeed, this doctrine has merely been transmuted. While the cultural Marxist may not embrace the polymath myth of his classical Marxist forbear he does embrace a similar myth of pansexualism. Cultural Marxism holds out the promise that a being can one day be a man, and the next day be a woman, and the next day be a transgender male that is a Lesbian and the next day can be a newt. Just as classical Marxism held out the promise to all men that they each could be Renaissance men so the cultural Marxist holds out the promise to all men that they can be accomplished in any and all perversions they desire. The elimination of distribution of set labor so that each could do all as found in the classical Marxist model has been transmuted in the elimination of distribution of set sexuality so that each can sexually be all.

The implicit existentialism found in the nonsense that all men, in a Communist Marxist model, could be masters of everything according to their whim is now the implicit existentialism as found in the nonsense that men, in a Cultural Marxist model , can be masters of gender according to their revolving whim of desires.

Unitarian Universalist Apologetics

Bret,

Ah, a Calvinist. Well, that explains the hostility towards anything a Unitarian Universalist minister might have to say. Unlike you Bret, I respect the rights of others to follow the religious path of their choice. I also believe that humans have the capacity for reason and can determine for themselves what is true and right in life.

I will leave it to readers to look up your beliefs. Since John Calvin burned Michael Servetus at the stake for the heresy of freethought, our faith traditions have had little in common. Therefore, I am not surprised at your tone or your presumption to know what is in my heart.

Given our widely varying beliefs, I doubt that there is anything I could say that would be useful in any type of dialogue with you. People must be open to revelation from human experience, love, and goodness to move away from concepts such as inherent depravity, and I suspect that you are not at that point. When and if you do reach such a time, get in touch and I would be happy to talk.

Jeff Liebmann
Ordained Minister at Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Midland

Response,

Jeff Liebmann

My hostility, as you call it, has nothing to do with your UU status. My hostility is against your belief system that is destroying Biblical Christianity and so the West in the name of Christianity.

You respect the rights of others to follow the religous path of their choice? Really? Do you respect that Hindu family who insists that a young widowed wife immolate herself on her husbands funeral pyre because of their religious path called Suttee? Do you respect the religious path of those who would sacrafice their children in the fires of Molech? Do you even respect my religious path of pointing out how irrational your religious path is?

You try to posit yourself as the reasonable one in the conversation and myself as the extremist but in point of fact you are the one who has consistently revealed yourself to be the extremist. If humans, as you say, can determine for themselves what is true and right in life then how can there be any objection from you if, like the Marquis deSade, humans determine to go all sadistic on those who are weaker then them? How can you object if, like Friedrich Nietzshe, humans determine it is criminal for the stronger to esteem and protect the weaker in society? How can you object if, like Joe Stalin, humans determine that 30 million lifes spent is a reasonable price for political reorganziation?

You deny inherent depravity. Have you studied the 20th century at all? If 20th century empirical history proves anything it proves that man is inherently depraved.

No, the fact of the matter UUJ is that you are a non sensible person who has staked out positions that have no cohesion or coherency — and you have done so in the name of a Christianity that is vile and foul beyond reckoning. You may be full of good intentions. I don’t know. But regardless of your possible good intentions your belief system, when examined, is destructive and inhibitive of human flourshing.

Next you complain about my presumption. I don’t have to presume to “know what’s in your heart.” You tell me and the readership all the time. There is no presumption here. There is just taking your words seriously.

Finally, you insist that people must be “open to revelation from human experience, love, and goodness.” This statement leaves me incredulous. I contend that if man wants to live the good life we must come under God’s revelation of Scripture. You contend that if man wants to live the good life man must be open to the revelation from human experience, love, and goodness. Where as your revelation led us? Well, just most recently we see,

1.) Aborting babies and selling their body parts

2.) Sadism and Masochism on a wide scale (“50 Shades of Gray” anyone?)

You are correct though when you imply how little commonality we have. The difference between us is the difference between the Serpent who said, “Hath God really said,” and the Scriptural Prophet who has always said, “Thus saith the Lord.”

And yet, the Lord Christ died for sins such as yours and still commands all men everywhere to repent. Will you not repent Jeff?